Premiums will rise dramatically unless penalties for failure to purchase insurance effectively eliminate financial incentives for not purchasing insurance. On this criterion, the Senate bill is wrong. In trying to make the bill more "affordable" to people without insurance, it reduced penalties for non-purchase to levels that are so low that they are meaningless. If the plan does not require virtually universal coverage, it is a mistake to eliminate restrictions based on medical condition.

Ah ... now we have a start at cutting through the political gobbledigook, and getting down to discussing the brass tacks.

I doubt there is anyone on this forum who would believe that our delivery of health care is perfect. The question is really what can we do to improve what we've got without breaking the bank.

The USPS model tells us a lot. USPS is required to provide 44-cent letters to everyone. For those who can afford it, there is fax, email, USPS Overnight Service, Fed Ex, etc. Everyone gets the basic service, but not everyone can afford the "premium" services. Because of the basic requirement of affordable "basic" service, the USPS probably sustains a loss on that. (other factors enter into the loss, as well)

I think that it is also simply realistic to accept that we will never be able to totally equalize the same level of health care for everyone. As mentioned before, those with more wealth will always have a capability to purchase more & better care than those with more limited means. That applies to all the things we consume, from food to cars to homes.

The accessability to the very best health care follows that same pattern even in those countries which have attempted to provide equal care to everyone. Those that can afford better care can afford to go somewhere to purchase what their own country cannot provide for them, even if it means going outside of their own country.

It matters not whether the we favor R or D. Numbers don't "rationalize" the way the politicos do :-) I favor whoever will face the numbers, and get the best bang for the buck.

10-13-2009, 08:50 AM

Steve Amrein

Quote:

Originally Posted by YardleyLabs

Premiums will rise dramatically unless penalties for failure to purchase insurance effectively eliminate financial incentives for not purchasing insurance. On this criterion, the Senate bill is wrong. In trying to make the bill more "affordable" to people without insurance, it reduced penalties for non-purchase to levels that are so low that they are meaningless. If the plan does not require virtually universal coverage, it is a mistake to eliminate restrictions based on medical condition.

I am not sure of the numbers but the feds dont enforce much. Folks cheat on tax returns, some are undocumented aliens and some dont have car insurance. I doubt the success of federal mandated requirement to carry health insurance will reach the number of people that dont have it now. Who is going to enforce this ?

10-13-2009, 08:57 AM

code3retrievers

Quote:

Originally Posted by YardleyLabs

Premiums will rise dramatically unless penalties for failure to purchase insurance effectively eliminate financial incentives for not purchasing insurance. On this criterion, the Senate bill is wrong. In trying to make the bill more "affordable" to people without insurance, it reduced penalties for non-purchase to levels that are so low that they are meaningless. If the plan does not require virtually universal coverage, it is a mistake to eliminate restrictions based on medical condition.

Tell me how would this be constitutional?

10-13-2009, 09:14 AM

road kill

Quote:

Originally Posted by code3retrievers

Tell me how would this be constitutional?

The current administration doesn't know what that is, other than a document that is in their way!!:D

10-13-2009, 10:06 AM

YardleyLabs

Quote:

Originally Posted by code3retrievers

Tell me how would this be constitutional?

The approach used in HR3200 would be completely constitutional. Either you are covered by a qualified health plan or you pay a special tax which goes into a fund to pay for care provided to uninsured people.

10-13-2009, 10:41 AM

Gerry Clinchy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Amrein

I am not sure of the numbers but the feds dont enforce much. Folks cheat on tax returns, some are undocumented aliens and some dont have car insurance. I doubt the success of federal mandated requirement to carry health insurance will reach the number of people that dont have it now. Who is going to enforce this ?

As I mentioned earlier, it would appear that the only way to enforce this is for the IRS to do a match-up with the policy records for all insurors. This would probably work much like the IRS gets employer information on W2 and 1099 forms for income. For employer-based coverage, it could probably get put on the W2 forms; not a big deal there. For 1099 recipients it would be more involved.

Remember, I also said that, even with computers, this won't be cost-free. computer space/time isn't free.

While I'm not in favor of the heavy govt involvement that the plans on the table, like Yardley, I don't think that constiutionality would be an issue on this "tax". I'm more concerned that most illegal residents will still get health care at no cost at all, with taxpayers picking up the tab ... no change at all from what is happening now.

Someone suggested a while back that EVERYone, no matter what their status, should pay SOMEthing for their medical care. Even $20/mo from every illegal (for 11,000,000) would come to 2.64 BILLION each year. It might not cover all the care administered, but it sure would help.

Each employer would remit that amount with their quarterly deposits now made for SS and other withholding (for all employees not covered by any health care insurance). The employer would NOT have to contribute, just the employee. The cost would not be enough of an incentive to make those employees get health insurance, but it sure would help pay the bill for the care they get.

Even if the employer did not individually identify the employees (as might be the case with illegals), it is logical that a vegetable grower (for example) could not harvest his entire crop with 20 workers v. 120. We might not "capture" all the people, but it should catch quite a few ... at least as far as getting some health care costs covered, if not for deportation. Recognizing that employers will try to cheat the system, they might report only 90 employees rather than 120, but that would still be a big help.

The $ could go into a State fund that could be distributed to doctors and hospitals that report their unreimbursed care (which they already keep track of for accounting purposes.) The amounts could be distributed based on the amount of unreimbursed care provided as a percentage of total care provided. Thus, those hospitals in poorer areas who provide more unreimbursed care might be able to stay afloat instead of going bankrupt. I would not just throw it into the Medicaid funds. Only the funds collected would be distributed. If kept in an interest-bearing account until distributed, that could mean a bit more as an end-result.

I'm absolutely sure that employers with illegal employees will NOT absorb the cost. They will, indeed, deduct it from the employees' compensation. I doubt that $20/mo is enough to make the illegals go home, but it will at least help the US solve part of the problem financially.

10-13-2009, 01:52 PM

Steve Amrein

My point is that they have computers now. If they would actually look Juan Smith shares the same name and SS as the 437 of the other Illegals with fake identity. Never mind all the criminals that live here that have no ID at all. Even Bank of America could figure out when 2 people share the same ID.

10-14-2009, 02:43 PM

code3retrievers

Quote:

Originally Posted by YardleyLabs

The approach used in HR3200 would be completely constitutional. Either you are covered by a qualified health plan or you pay a special tax which goes into a fund to pay for care provided to uninsured people.

How is making me buy an item that I may not want or need constitutional?

If I am millionaire and consider myself self-insured you are forcing me to buy something that I do not want or maybe don't need.

Can the government tell me that I have to buy a car that I don't want or need? NO!

This is heading down a very slippery slope with the idiotic left dragging everyone along with it.

Did you say tax? Is that another campaign promise the overlord is breaking?

10-14-2009, 03:15 PM

TXduckdog

The USPS model is interesting......the only problem is the price of stamps keeps going up on at least an annual basis!!!